Leader of the Conservative Party Pierre Poilievre rises during Question Period in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, on Oct. 3.PATRICK DOYLE/The Canadian Press
True patriot love
Re “No evidence MPs committed treason, PM’s national-security adviser states” (Oct. 10): Are Canadians supposed to be reassured by this statement?
Any collaboration with foreign governments, whether it meets the definition of treason or not, should be considered an affront to our democracy. This behaviour should not be tolerated by Canadians.
The names of these parliamentarians should be made public. Before we cast our votes in the next election, we deserve to know if a particular candidate is committed to work in Canada’s best interests, and that their allegiance is solely to Canadians.
Michael Gilman Toronto
Ill Liberals
Re “Bill Blair’s former aide can’t explain warrant delay in Michael Chan surveillance request from CSIS” (Oct. 10): With Justin Trudeau’s Liberals, it is often more a case of “won’t” as opposed to “can’t.”
Vic Bornell Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ont.
How many times does Bill Blair have to screw up before he is fired by Justin Trudeau?
As minister for the joint portfolios of emergency preparedness and public safety, he oversaw unparalleled wildfires with substantially decreased wildfire relief staffing and seemingly rampant Chinese spying. Now he’s in charge of defence, at a time when Canada is recognized as a chronic delinquent in NATO military spending.
Enough already. Get rid of him.
Paul Jelec Mississauga
Re “Come together” (Letters, Oct. 9): A letter-writer suggests that, if there were ever a time for the Liberals and NDP to create one party, then this is it. Let’s slow down here.
The Liberals, as a centrist party, have won the vast majority of federal elections. Justin Trudeau has taken them down a more leftist road: profligate spending on a bevy of causes; no action on NATO defence and United Nations peacekeeping; too much fiddling with the immigration system.
The letter-writer also opines that Mélanie Joly would be a good choice for leader of this new amalgamated party. In my view, she blew the digital-media file before being moved on from Canadian heritage minister. For the last three years, she’s been Minister of Foreign Affairs. How did her recent trip to China work out?
Jean Chrétien and other senior Liberals from the past would probably laugh, or cry, after reading this letter-writer’s views.
Jim Hickman Bracebridge, Ont.
Poilievre’s problems
Re “Pierre Poilievre, champion of the little guy, just voted to hurt young workers” (Oct. 8): I believe Pierre Poilievre truly has been hypocritical in voting for an increase to Old Age Security entitlements. Unfortunately, the Harper-era plan to gradually move OAS eligibility to age 67 was both unpopular and a good policy.
We don’t have to follow the United States, but it’s worth noting some key differences in social entitlements for seniors. U.S. Social Security requires higher contributions on earned income, and has higher payouts than does our Canada Pension Plan. Canada has a Guaranteed Income Supplement for low-income seniors, and the U.S. does have an equivalent.
But there is no U.S. equivalent to Canada’s unearned OAS, which is a massive and growing expenditure for the government. Canada should be limiting OAS instead of chasing votes by increasing it.
Tony Hooper Toronto
Re “Why Pierre Poilievre can’t crack the Quebec code” (Opinion, Oct. 5): As a first-generation Canadian born in Montreal to French parents (from France), I can tell Pierre Poilievre how to crack the Quebec code: It’s the accent, stupid.
My sisters and I spoke flawless French, but we weren’t easily accepted by our friends. We didn’t sound like everyone else around us, who spoke Québécois French. We were outsiders.
We quickly learned how to speak Québécois French and the problem was solved. It boggles the mind that a career politician has not figured it out.
He had ample time to learn how to speak French like the locals, rather than the way he speaks it now. This shows Quebeckers that it’s not very important to him.
Pourtant, c’est un jeu d’enfant.
Geneviève Leclercq Ottawa
Dire straits
Re “An Unhealthy Debate: The promise of universal health care is dying” (Editorial, Oct. 5): All Canadians need timely access to both primary and secondary health care.
Canada relies on primary care practitioners not only as diagnosticians and treaters of the majority of medical conditions, but also as gatekeepers for patient access to secondary, specialist care. No primary health care? No secondary health care.
If Canada’s per capita spending on health care is amongst the highest internationally, why is access to primary health care so, so bad? Nothing short of a joint federal-provincial vision, with absolute federal-provincial buy-in, total federal-provincial commitment and the backing of an accountability framework, would provide universal access to PCPs.
If politicians can’t, or won’t, solve this foundational Canadian need, then Canada will likely become a failed state.
Geoffrey Johnston Winnipeg
For a number of years, I practised as a family physician in a small Ontario town and I enjoyed the privilege of being able to do so.
There are 16 million Ontario citizens. I am disappointed that so many citizens are unable to find a doctor. I am also upset that the province’s 15,000-plus family physicians are unable to provide timely service despite a ratio of only 1,100 patients per doctor, a very reasonable patient load.
The government should study why existing doctors are unable to meet current needs. It would then be the government’s duty to abandon efforts to privatize health care and introduce the study’s recommendations.
Ross McElroy East Zorra-Tavistock, Ont.
Some 3,500 Canadian students go abroad each year to obtain medical degrees, but fewer than 500 are allowed back for postgraduate residency positions (“Canadian doctors trained at international medical schools increasingly giving up on their home country for work” – Dec. 13, 2022). This should be a scandal.
Medical schools should dramatically expand residency programs, with preference given to certain specialties such as anesthesia, psychiatry and family practice.
Family practice is a whole other issue. “Cradle to grave” family care is less and less popular for a variety of reasons, but one of the main problems I see is the lack of support for general practitioners.
In Ontario, only 30 per cent of family physicians are connected to a family health team – scandal No. 2. Nurse practitioners, social workers, dieticians, pharmacists and administrators can back up and take a load off the team doctor.
All too often the burden proves too much, and the family physician simply quits. That’s my take from this side of the gurney.
Richard James MD, FRCPC Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ont.
Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Keep letters to 150 words or fewer. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@globeandmail.com